The
Plaintiffs in this case - Matthew Stumm, Jason Stumm, and
Brian Helmer - are current or former Pittsboro Police
officers who allege that the Chief of Police and a Police
Major recorded their conversations without their knowledge
and without a court order in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Relatedly, Plaintiffs
allege that Carri Weber, a Captain with the Plainfield Police
Department, violated the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2510, et seq., when she used and disclosed the
recorded conversations while conducting an investigation into
alleged misconduct on the part of Matthew Stumm. Presently
pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Captain Weber. [Filing No. 12.] For the reasons that follow,
the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

I.
Standard of Review

Under
Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim that does
not state a right to relief. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require that a complaint provide the defendant with
“fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true
and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. See Active Disposal Inc. v. City of
Darien,635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). A Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint
“contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory
allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief.
See McCauley v. City of Chicago,671 F.3d 611, 617
(7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly state an
entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises above the
speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d
630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility determination is
“a context- specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id.

II.
Background

The
following are the factual allegations in the Complaint, which
the Court must accept as true at this time:

Sometime prior to the end of 2016, Pittsboro Chief of Police
Christi Patterson directed Major Scott King to install video
surveillance cameras in the front area of the building that
houses the Pittsboro Police Department (the
“Department”). [Filing No. 1 at
3.] Chief Patterson and Major King then informed members
of the Department that the front area of the building would
be monitored by cameras, but the area would not be subject to
audio recording because the cameras were not capable of
recording audio. [Filing No. 1 at 3.] For over a
year, Chief Patterson and Major King surreptitiously recorded
and listened to conversations that occurred in the front area
of the Department building between the Department's
officers, including Plaintiffs Matthew Stumm, Jason Stumm,
and Brian Helmer. [Filing No. 1 at 4.] Chief
Patterson and Major King did so without a warrant, a court
order, or consent on the part of Plaintiffs. [Filing No.
1 at 5.]

Meanwhile,
in late 2016, Matthew Stumm, who was then employed by the
Department, became concerned that Chief Patterson and Major
King were being paid for hours that they did not work, and
began obtaining documents in an effort to confirm his
suspicion. [Filing No. 1 at 3.]

In
February 2017, Chief Patterson prepared a report accusing
Matthew Stumm of defaming a fellow officer and making
statements that were damaging to morale, and she placed him
on administrative leave. [Filing No. 1 at 3.] Chief
Patterson then requested that Captain Carri Weber of the
Plainfield Police Department conduct an investigation into
Matthew Stumm's misconduct. [Filing No. 1 at 4.]

As part
of her investigation, Captain Weber conducted an interview of
Matthew Stumm, during which he acknowledged making derogatory
statements about Chief Patterson and Major King. [Filing
No. 1 at 4.] Captain Weber informed Matthew Stumm that
she had listened to recordings of his comments about Chief
Patterson and Major King and that he could obtain copies of
the conversations from the Pittsboro Police Commission's
attorney. [Filing No. 1 at 4.] Matthew Stumm
subsequently obtained the recordings. [Filing No. 1 at
4.]

In
October 2017, Chief Patterson informed the Pittsboro Police
Commission that she would seek Matthew Stumm's
termination. [Filing No. 1 at 4.]

On
November 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed suit against the Town of
Pittsboro acting by and through the Department, Chief
Patterson in her official and individual capacities, and
Major King and Captain Weber in their individual capacities.
[Filing No. 1.] With respect to Pittsboro,
Plaintiffs allege that the city maintains an unconstitutional
and illegal policy of intercepting, recording, and disclosing
conversations. [Filing No. 1 at 5.] In addition,
Plaintiffs contend that Chief Patterson and Major King's
actions in intercepting, recording, and disclosing their
private conversations constitute an illegal search in
violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Wiretap
Act. [Filing No. 1 at 5.] Plaintiffs further allege
that Captain Weber violated the Federal Wiretap Act by using
and disclosing Plaintiffs' recorded conversations.
[Filing No. 1 at 5.]

Captain
Weber filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure12(b)(6) alleging that the
allegations in the Complaint do not state a cause of action
against her and her Motion is now ripe for the Court's
review.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;III.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.